iMac Pro now or wait?

alaman64 said:
Maybe but a new iMac will be released in June 2020, the current one needs a refresh badly. Have you read any of the reviews for the 2019 iMac? All reviews praise the performance and critique the look that is now 7 years old. The iMac is embarrassing, Apple has always been about looks over function, 1 inch bezels??? Just does not fit. They are about security and privacy, no T2 chip in the iMac.... they are about profit, with iPhone sales dropping, they need new revenue sources. A new iMac with a small bezel, 32 inch screen, will generate sales from existing iMac owners who have been hesitant to change.
Click to expand...

I personally don’t care myself about silly things like dated looks and large bezels since to me the iMac still looks really nice, but I WAS surprised to see my 2019 iMac on an episode of The Office from 2010. I had to go back, wait for the right side camera angle, and pause it to notice it was the older, thicker model, but damn if it doesn’t look the same from the front! :)
 
xWhiplash said:
It has also been suggested to me to wait for the Mac Pro. I’m not sure how I feel about that system. I can get the iMac pro with Vega 64x and 64GB of RAM and still be under the horrible base Mac Pro. Really, 256GB and 580 for the base model at $6,000? With no monitor even! Why is it so much? iMac Pro is so much better specs at the price. It would probably be $7,000 or $8,000 to even match the iMac Pro
Click to expand...
The base Mac Pro's cost is so high because of its insane motherboard, and the fact that the entire case acts as a heat sync for the components. The parts they put into the base Mac Pro are underpowered compared to the board's potential, and so the price seems skewed for the components. Really, the only people who are buying a base Mac Pro are the people who are just after marketing all of the upgrades.

If you had say 7,000$ + to spend on a professional workstation (like I did, back in December 2017) and needed all of the horsepower you could get, I would strongly advise to wait for the Mac Pro. Otherwise the iMac Pro is a better dollar-to-performance machine in the 5,000-6,000$ range.
 
SecuritySteve said:
The base Mac Pro's cost is so high because of its insane motherboard, and the fact that the entire case acts as a heat sync for the components. The parts they put into the base Mac Pro are underpowered compared to the board's potential, and so the price seems skewed for the components. Really, the only people who are buying a base Mac Pro are the people who are just after marketing all of the upgrades.

If you had say 7,000$ + to spend on a professional workstation (like I did, back in December 2017) and needed all of the horsepower you could get, I would strongly advise to wait for the Mac Pro. Otherwise the iMac Pro is a better dollar-to-performance machine in the 5,000-6,000$ range.
Click to expand...
Do you know if there is any major difference between the Vega 56, 64 and 64x in terms of gameplay performance?
 
xWhiplash said:
Do you know if there is any major difference between the Vega 56, 64 and 64x in terms of gameplay performance?
Click to expand...
I do! Well, at least between the 56 and 64.

I have two iMac Pros side by side, and when my girlfriend is on hers with the 56 and I am on mine with the 64, the difference is very small in games. Benchmarks estimated that the difference is within 6%. This is because games mostly care about the clock speed of the GPU cores, which is why NVIDIA (which prioritizes clock speed vs core count) GPUs tend to be superior to AMD in the gaming theatre.

According to:
64 X
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-pro-vega-64x.c3404
64
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-pro-vega-64.c3098
56
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-pro-vega-56.c3099

So under heavy thermal load, the 64X is not any better than the 64. Basically it is an overclocked card. Expect it to run hotter, but to get higher frame rates in gaming. Your iMac Pro might be a bit louder, but otherwise perform better, approximately 10% until it goes down to it's base clock.

So for gaming, the 64X would be better, but the 64 is probably the best dollars-to-performance.
 
SecuritySteve said:
I do! Well, at least between the 56 and 64.

I have two iMac Pros side by side, and when my girlfriend is on hers with the 56 and I am on mine with the 64, the difference is very small in games. Benchmarks estimated that the difference is within 6%. This is because games mostly care about the clock speed of the GPU cores, which is why NVIDIA (which prioritizes clock speed vs core count) GPUs tend to be superior to AMD in the gaming theatre.

According to:
64 X
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-pro-vega-64x.c3404
64
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-pro-vega-64.c3098
56
https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/radeon-pro-vega-56.c3099

So under heavy thermal load, the 64X is not any better than the 64. Basically it is an overclocked card. Expect it to run hotter, but to get higher frame rates in gaming. Your iMac Pro might be a bit louder, but otherwise perform better, approximately 10% until it goes down to it's base clock.

So for gaming, the 64X would be better, but the 64 is probably the best dollars-to-performance.
Click to expand...

So how’s the 56? I’m fine getting an eGPU later if I need it (I’m using my GTX 1080 as an eGPU now).

Games I like: Final Fantasy X (NOT NOT NOT XV, I do not like the fighting system), Factorio, Minecraft (Windows 10 Edition), Satisfactory, Terraria, Doom (2016), GTA 5, Borderlands series, Nier Automata, Dragon Quest 11 (My GTX 1080 has some issues with this game even), Ni No Kuni 2, Halo Master Chief Collection when it comes out on PC, and more.

Have you played any of those at 2560x1440?
 
xWhiplash said:
So how’s the 56? I’m fine getting an eGPU later if I need it (I’m using my GTX 1080 as an eGPU now).

Games I like: Final Fantasy X (NOT NOT NOT XV, I do not like the fighting system), Factorio, Minecraft (Windows 10 Edition), Satisfactory, Terraria, Doom (2016), GTA 5, Borderlands series, Nier Automata, Dragon Quest 11 (My GTX 1080 has some issues with this game even), Ni No Kuni 2, Halo Master Chief Collection when it comes out on PC, and more.

Have you played any of those at 2560x1440?
Click to expand...
The 56 is playable. If you really were just watching both using your peripheral vision, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference most of the time between the 56 and the 64. It is totally good to play all of those games on the 56. I ran Doom 2016 on the internal monitor at 2560x1440 and it ran fine on both the 56 and 64. Though I kinda wish the iMac's monitor had a higher refresh rate, as turning was a little too blurry for me. (I originally played the game on a 120 Hz monitor ... hard to be locked at 60 Hz now)
 
SecuritySteve said:
The 56 is playable. If you really were just watching both using your peripheral vision, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference most of the time between the 56 and the 64. It is totally good to play all of those games on the 56. I ran Doom 2016 on the internal monitor at 2560x1440 and it ran fine on both the 56 and 64. Though I kinda wish the iMac's monitor had a higher refresh rate, as turning was a little too blurry for me. (I originally played the game on a 120 Hz monitor ... hard to be locked at 60 Hz now)
Click to expand...

Have you turned VSYNC off and see how much FPS you can get? I have a 144 Hz display I want to keep as my secondary display and play games on it. If the 56 vs 64 is not that big of a difference, I think I can get by with just the 56 one. Do you think it will last 5+ years for professional work? I can always get an eGPU 2-3 years later to play the newest games on it.
 
xWhiplash said:
Have you turned VSYNC off and see how much FPS you can get? I have a 144 Hz display I want to keep as my secondary display and play games on it. If the 56 vs 64 is not that big of a difference, I think I can get by with just the 56 one. Do you think it will last 5+ years for professional work? I can always get an eGPU 2-3 years later to play the newest games on it.
Click to expand...
Define professional work.

From what I've learned from my girlfriend, who is the graphics designer, Adobe eats up the VRAM of her 56 wildly. I almost wish I had gotten her the 64, but right now she's blown away by how nice the 56 is in comparison to her GTX 1070 on her old PC.
 
SecuritySteve said:
Define professional work.

From what I've learned from my girlfriend, who is the graphics designer, Adobe eats up the VRAM of her 56 wildly. I almost wish I had gotten her the 64, but right now she's blown away by how nice the 56 is in comparison to her GTX 1070 on her old PC.
Click to expand...

Final Cut Pro X 1080p footage, exported to HEVC for the file size benefit. Maybe I should post what I do:

I record my screen for creating online tutorials for software development, graphic design, and more topics. I use OBS on Windows to record my screen. I also use a Razer Ripsaw and record gameplay footage from PS4/Switch for some Lets Plays style of videos. I use Final Cut Pro X to perform some light editing (adding titles, cutting up pauses, and so on) and compressor to create the video file. I use H.265 purely for the file size benefit. I record and process the videos at 1080p resolution. I might create some cool Adobe After Effects intro sequences at 4K, but there will be very little 4K video editing going on. Sometimes I can get into 1-4 Hour recording sessions and want to speed up the amount it takes to render the video. With my current iMac, it is usually a 1:1 ratio, where if I record a 4 hour training session, it will take compressor around 4 hours to render the video.

I also do software development, primarily Visual Studio 2019 in Windows with MonoGame and Unity for game development. I would like to start macOS development too. I use Logic Pro X or Garageband for my video game sound effects and music. I use both Affinity (Photo and Designer) and Adobe (Photoshop and Illustrator) software for the graphical side of things. I mostly do 2D game development, but I will start getting into 3D work in the next couple of years.
 
xWhiplash said:
Final Cut Pro X 1080p footage, exported to HEVC for the file size benefit. Maybe I should post what I do:

I record my screen for creating online tutorials for software development, graphic design, and more topics. I use OBS on Windows to record my screen. I also use a Razer Ripsaw and record gameplay footage from PS4/Switch for some Lets Plays style of videos. I use Final Cut Pro X to perform some light editing (adding titles, cutting up pauses, and so on) and compressor to create the video file. I use H.265 purely for the file size benefit. I record and process the videos at 1080p resolution. I might create some cool Adobe After Effects intro sequences at 4K, but there will be very little 4K video editing going on. Sometimes I can get into 1-4 Hour recording sessions and want to speed up the amount it takes to render the video. With my current iMac, it is usually a 1:1 ratio, where if I record a 4 hour training session, it will take compressor around 4 hours to render the video.

I also do software development, primarily Visual Studio 2019 in Windows with MonoGame and Unity for game development. I would like to start macOS development too. I use Logic Pro X or Garageband for my video game sound effects and music. I use both Affinity (Photo and Designer) and Adobe (Photoshop and Illustrator) software for the graphical side of things. I mostly do 2D game development, but I will start getting into 3D work in the next couple of years.
Click to expand...
Wow, sounds like you check all of the boxes don't you. ;)

You probably would be able to make use of the extra VRAM on the Vega 64 in that case. Again, the 64X is an overclocked 64, so in terms of editing performance it's going to be very similar. I would strongly suggest the 64 for you, and the 64X if you can afford it.

But hey, you're in luck! Apple dropped the iMac Pro SSD upgrade prices day by 200$. That might save you enough money to rationalize the upgrade. :D
 
We're approaching the two-year gap since the presentation of the iMac Pro.

All other Macs have been updated. Are we going to wait as much as we waited for a Mac Pro for an update?

Apple, please. It seemed - given the "famous" press conference on the Mac Pro in 2017 - that you understood that machines must be kept up to date or at least lower the price on two years old components. :(
 
askunk said:
We're approaching the two-year gap since the presentation of the iMac Pro.

All other Macs have been updated. Are we going to wait as much as we waited for a Mac Pro for an update?

Apple, please. It seemed - given the "famous" press conference on the Mac Pro in 2017 - that you understood that machines must be kept up to date or at least lower the price on two years old components. :(
Click to expand...
The iMac Pro was updated when the 2019 iMac was updated. Well, at least one component was. There are no suitable Xeon replacements right now for the TDP. I think I've said this a couple times now.
Edit: Not in this thread it seems. Sorry :(
 
Last edited:
askunk said:
We're approaching the two-year gap since the presentation of the iMac Pro.

All other Macs have been updated. Are we going to wait as much as we waited for a Mac Pro for an update?
Click to expand...

Intel has not released an update to the processor family used in the iMac Pro so there is nothing for Apple to upgrade to at the moment. They updated the GPU and cut the price of the memory and SSD storage options, so we at least have that.

In theory, Cascade Lake-X Xeons that would work with the iMac Pro (W-2000 Series on the LGA-2066 socket) are due in late 2019 or early 2020, but considering Intel's manufacturing issues the past few years, I would not hold my breath they will actually be ready in that time-frame. Then again, if Apple only needs a comparable handful, Intel might be able to supply them.
 
askunk said:
I thought these could be the ones: https://wccftech.com/intel-xeon-w-cascade-lake-cpu-28-core-56-thread-64-pcie-lanes/
Click to expand...

Those are all flamethrowers for a chassis such as the iMac Pro. Intel theoretically has a new revision to the Core X-Series that is based on Cascade Lake coming before the end of the year. This would most likely form the basis of a new Gen of Xeon W-2xxx Series CPUs that would have a 165w TDP maximum and continue using the LGA-2066 socket as the current iMac Pro uses. The CPUs in the upcoming Mac Pro are the Xeon W-32xx Series and have moved to the much larger LGA-3647 socket.

Time will tell if Intel is serious about having two lines of Xeon W CPUs...or not.
 
Zdigital2015 said:
Time will tell if Intel is serious about having two lines of Xeon W CPUs...or not.
Click to expand...

Since the W-2000 series are effectively the same as the Enthusiast Core i9 CPUs, offering them is not really any trouble for Intel and they can charge more for them since they are "Xeons" and not "Cores". The real difference is the supporting chipset (C Series versus X series) that supports ECC RAM and such.
 
So I think I decided on the one I want.

8-Core
64GB of RAM
Vega 64
1TB SSD.

$5,592 with my discount.

I was thinking about upping the 1TB for 2TB, so that might still change. But I find external SSDs just fine for my needs. My only concern was to limit macOS and Windows to 512GB each. Will this last for 5+ years or should I get the 2TB for 1TB each?
 
xWhiplash said:
So I think I decided on the one I want.

8-Core
64GB of RAM
Vega 64
1TB SSD.

$5,592 with my discount.

I was thinking about upping the 1TB for 2TB, so that might still change. But I find external SSDs just fine for my needs. My only concern was to limit macOS and Windows to 512GB each. Will this last for 5+ years or should I get the 2TB for 1TB each?
Click to expand...
Given that you game, I would recommend the 2TB for 1TB partitions each. Games eat up so much space ... and yes you can offload them to external storage but it's a PITA sometimes to manage clients with unusual install locations.

Again, you could get away with it, but I find the nuisance of space annoying in my usage of macOS / Windows.
 
guys, how is bootcamp on the imac pro?
i read reports of bad / not optimized gpu drivers, also some problems with sound drivers....
for the vega56 model, are the fans getting loud under gaming / unigine heaven bench (known to push gpu) load?
 
Intel-Comet-Lake-S-10th-Gen-Processors-LGA-1200-Socket_3.png
These ones, then?

https://www.tomshardware.co.uk/intel-cascade-lake-x-cpu-glacier-falls,news-60498.html
 
askunk said:
These ones, then?
Click to expand...

Yes. Glacier Falls will ship first as X-9000 series Core i9 models and then eventually be re-branded as W-2000 series Xeons later on that will be used to update the iMac Pro. Since it does not look like the X models will be shipping until later this year, I do not hold out hope to see the W models shipping before 2020. On the plus side, Apple has been showing willingness to ship new MacBook Pros when the CPUs are available so that might mean a Mid-2020 iMac Pro update rather than having to wait until the Fall.
 
Last edited:
SecuritySteve said:
The 56 is playable. If you really were just watching both using your peripheral vision, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference most of the time between the 56 and the 64. It is totally good to play all of those games on the 56. I ran Doom 2016 on the internal monitor at 2560x1440 and it ran fine on both the 56 and 64. Though I kinda wish the iMac's monitor had a higher refresh rate, as turning was a little too blurry for me. (I originally played the game on a 120 Hz monitor ... hard to be locked at 60 Hz now)
Click to expand...

Hey so you said the iMac Pro was good for gaming right. I just saw this has it improved? https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/imac-pro-weak-performance-with-bootcamp.2098567/
 
xWhiplash said:
I just saw this has it improved? https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/imac-pro-weak-performance-with-bootcamp.2098567/
Click to expand...

Apple's standard BootCamp drivers are old and dialed for stability, not performance. You will see a fair bit of improvement using the modded official AMD drivers from sites like https://www.bootcampdrivers.com.

(As an aside, it is nice to see that AMD finally fixed the issue with the 5K displays - for a number of revisions last year the driver would treat the 5K display as two 2560x1440 displays so you would have two desktops of that resolution and could not change it).
 
CWallace said:
Apple's standard BootCamp drivers are old and dialed for stability, not performance. You will see a fair bit of improvement using the modded official AMD drivers from sites like https://www.bootcampdrivers.com.

(As an aside, it is nice to see that AMD finally fixed the issue with the 5K displays - for a number of revisions last year the driver would treat the 5K display as two 2560x1440 displays so you would have two desktops of that resolution and could not change it).
Click to expand...

Well my boot camp driver for my 2017 iMac 580. I am able to get very good performance so I’m shocked that the Vega 64 is horrible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top